What Does "In X's Interest" Mean?

Jonathan is overweight and considered morbidly obese. He frequents fast food resteraunts for most meals, and ignores doctors repeated warnings that, with every meal, he decreases his chance of living. He keeps eating fast food because it tastes much better than food he would make himself.

Tamara smokes marijuana every day. Despite the fact that it is illegal, she likes to smoke it because it helps her concentrate and relaxes her. She is not familiar with some of marijuana's health risks but obviously knows the legal risks. She continiues to buy and smoke marijuana despite this knowlege.

_________________________________________________

So are these activities in these two actors interests? Some say that eating fast food and smoking marijuana are in these two's interests because (obviously) these two engage in these activities. Others say that the activities are not in these two's best interests and that engaging in the activities is acting against their true interests.

To me, this difference of opinion resides in the conflict between what we mean by interests. Does 'interests' mean 'what one is interested in' or does it mean 'what is best for you'? If the former, then a case can be made that whatever we do because we like to do it is in our interest. We can make the argument that no one knows their interest better than others.

If, by 'interest' we mean 'what is best for someone,' then it is quite obvious that others can know our interests better than we. After all, it makes perfect sense to see that a child may not know what is best for her while a mother might (especially when the child wants candy while the mother pushes vegetables).

This question undergirds much of political theory. The question generally is not, or should not be, framed in an all or nothing way. Those who take the extremely libertarian (and really, anarchistic) view that only the individual can judge what is best for her will be foreced into many untenable positions (like the idea that 5 year olds should be able to choose to marry, drive, or do heroin, or that manic depressives should never be protected from suicide against their will). Those who take the opposite position - that others can often know what is best for the individual) have no reason to deny that the government knows what is best for us to read, see, or do.

Rather than being a black or white issue, the question generally is this: how can we recognize that there are occasions where y can know what is in x's best interest while also recognizing y's right to make decisions about her own life without x coming to dominate y? In other words, how can we respect y's ability to lead her own life while recognizing that there may be occasions where x may be in a better position than y (a kid, a mentally deluded person, a drug addict) to judge x's interests.

One can say, and many have, that the difference is in deciphering whether x is "thinking straight." But this hopelessly begs the question because, in general, we judge "thinking straight" by the conclusion come to. If one is against pornography, then there is no way that the urge to consume pornography can be seen as "thinking straight." If one is against suicide, then there is no way that a person who wants to commit suicide (however rational they, or their reasons, might be) will be seen as "thinking straight." Thus, "thinking straight' as a criterion is too nebulous and up to personal opinion to be of value.

So is saying that something is in x's best interest if and only if it is justifiable. Justifiable to whom? And what is and is not justifiable depends on who the proposition is being argued to. If it is the anti-pornography judge, then arguments for pornography can never be justifiable (like they would be to one who sees nothing wrong with pornography). Different people see different things as justifiable, and there is no cosmic "justifiability" principle.

So how can we tell whether x is acting in her interest? I think the issue still comes back to what we mean by her interest. I generally take the side that in the absence of evidence that x has sometype of mental deficiency that grossly inhibits her ability to make an objective (or close to) decision, then we lack any ground to say that x is incapable of ascertaining her own interest. (In this case, children, drug addicts, and those suffering from mood or emotional disorders are all considered mentally deficient in this way. Everyone recognizes this of the latter two groups, but children can be seen as mentally deficient in the sense that they lack the intellectual capacity to make fully informed decisions.)

Further, I take the stance that, if a person is seen as mentally deficient based on psychologicl data, we must further ask about the gravity of the decision x is about to make. Unless her decision is one that will have drastic personal consequences of the type she cannot adequately assess, we should let her do as she pleases. Only when what she is about to do has drastic consequences (engage in consumption of a lethal drug, commit suicide, get into an otherwise dangerous and potentially life changing situaiton), should we interfere and prevent her.

Put differently, the two criteria I think should be used in deciding whether x can accurately appraise her interests and whether to intervene are (a) whether the person can justly be seen as mentally incapable of acting objectively or near-objectively; and (b) whether the "interest" in question has potentially disasterous and life-changing cosnequences.

Following this rule would make it so that we can recognize that the child is not capable of deciding to marrry but the adult can. We could see that an adult can decide for herself whether to smoke marijuana but may not be able to judge whether she should continue injecting heroin or cystal meth. We could achieve a libertarian end of "live and let live" without getting to the point of "live and let die."

On Pathetic Republican Arguments

One of the key principles of rhetoric is to tailor your arguments to your audience. If you are arguing to Muslims, for instance, one should not use logic becuase they do not believe in logic. If one is arguing with democrats, one should do one's best to sound like Karl Marx (they love that stuff!). Etc.

According to this article, there are a handful of republicans with just enough intelligence to employ this strategy - at least they are trying! RNC chairman Michael Steele is trying a new rhetorical poisiton in the gay marriage debate, by arguing that it would hurt small businesses. Here is the quote:

"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

I am not sure that there is a technical name for this fallacy, but the problem with this argument is that it argues againt an effect that is not at all exclusive to the cause being argued against. It would be like arguing against riding on bicycles by suggesting that one could get injured (even though getting injured is not an effect at all exclusive to riding bicycles).

So, let's think about what the REAL implications of Steele's argument against dependents is. If we follow it to its logical conclusions, Steele's argument against forcing employers to pay for dependents could be seen as an argument not only against gay, but straight, marriage, or at very least an argument against having employers pay for ANY dependents (including children).

What is even more horrendous than the fact that Steele thinks he is smart enough to devise an argument is the fact that he is utterly transparent that it is not a sincere argument, but a rhetorical ploy!

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

This brings us full circle, back to the rules of rhetoric. A hidden rule of rhetoric is that while one should always tailor one's arguments to one's audience, one should never disclose that this is what one is doing. Otherwise, one opens onesself up to charges of insincerity and 'ends justifying the means" style of argument.

Steele's suggesting that one can "retool its message to appael to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles" will have the likely effect of achieving none of those goals. Arguments for gay marriage (especially those from the young) do not generally focus on economic arguments, but on civil rights arguments (showing that economic arguments will not likely triumph civil rights arguments in their minds). And as for sacrificing core conservative principles, if the principle is (as it always has been to the GOP) that homosexual marriage is immoral, then the principle is sacrificed as soon as one makes the gay marriage argument void of arguments from morality.

(And just for kicks, let me see if I can beat Steele at his own game. Wouldn't his argument against forcing employers to add dependents on to healthcare plans be a GREAT argument IN FAVOR of abortion? After all, the ability to abort potential children certainly would minimize the number of dependents one would claim for insurance purposes, wouldn't it?)

Does This Sound LIke Something From the USSR?

I just read a quite scary (to me) article today about the forced "govermentizing" of banks, in the form of the government buying bank equity shares. The article is called "Paulson gave banks no choice on government stakes: memos" According to the article, the press now has hold of documents outlining Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's talking points to banks telling them that the government will be buying bank shares and informing banks that they have no choice about this fate.

But there was one quote that caught my attention. Am I crazy, or does this sound like something out of the USSR. (Just add a Russian accent, if you'd like.)

"If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware your regulator will require it in any circumstance," the document said, citing Paulson talking points.

It has been a while since I've read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and I am not really a big fan of Rand, but I can't help but think back to her book and (if I recall it correctly) the government takeover of the railroads.

Scary, scary stuff.

Maine: Legalizing Gay Marriage the Smart (and Correct) Way

I am overjoyed to find this article detailing that the state of Maine just passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. And they did it the smart and correct way - which is great for a person like me, who supports gay mariage rights but disagrees strongly with the "legislation by judicial fiat" approach.

Several times I have been asked to participate in signing petitions voicing support for x state's attempt at "legalizing" gay marriage. Each time, I have been caught in a quandary. I strongly feel that states should make marriage laws as diverse as possible, stopping short of sanctioning coercion. (In fact, I question what qualifies the state to decide who we can and can't marry altogether.) At the same time, the libertarian principal I base that on also leads me to a principal in tension with the previous one: that legislation should be legislative and not judicial. Thus, I supported the idea that New York should legalize gay marriage, but was angry as hell at the idea that the judiciary could have the power to override a legislative matter that had NO CONSTITUTIONAL BEARING.

So, I am pleased to see that Maine, following the leads of Vermont and Connecticut, in signing a bill into law legalizing the ability of gays and lesbians to marry. One of the reasons I am pleased about this, in fact, is because when the decision is legislative, critics cannot say - as they often do! - that the bill is unrepresentative of the will of the people. per our democratic republican process, the very fact that these laws were enacted by the congress means that they were conducted properly and, should the people disagree, the people may vote the candidates out of office or petition to those candidates.

And the fact that these laws are enacted properly - by elected representatives - is also to be noted because this trend means that those who live in highly conservative states should not have to worry about the state judges usurping the authority of theiir representatives. In other words, as much as I like the idea of gay marriage being legal, I do not believe that it should be legal in states that do not wish it to be legal. Per the constitution's 10th amendment, the issue of marriage laws is deferred to the states. Until the 10th amendment is undone (or a gay marriage amendment pro- or con-) is added to the constitution, I think it would simply be unconstitutional to force states to legalize (or illegalize) something supported by the representatives.

So, Maine has done the smart thing here. I, for one, am overjoyed. HOpefully other states follow suit. And maybe someday, we will allow gay people to give blood.

On How to Eliminate the Department of Motor Vehicles

My wife and I were recently at the local DMV to get our names changed on our licenses (both of us are hyphenating our names). It never ceases to amaze either of us how inefficient these people are, which got us - libertarians, both - pondering ways to eliminate, or at least minimize, the role of the Department of Motor Vehicles in everyday life.

Here is an idea we had. The Department of Motor Vehicles is responsible for issuing drivers licenses and ensuring that those who get licenses are good enough drivers to be on the road. Of course, we also require every driver to have valid insurance. So, why not consolidate these two facts and let insurance companies be responsible for ensuring that qualifying for their insurance is accompanied by a driving test? I have little doubt in my mind that having insurance companies issue licenses as a condition of gaining access to their insurance would be more efficient and cost-effective than having the state do it.

The issue is really one of who has the more compelling interest in screening drivers - the state or the insurance companies. Yes, the state has an interest in screening drivers because they pay (or force us to pay, rather) for the roads, the EMT services and the emergency rooms that could be aversely affected in the case of accidents. But, insurance companies have an immediate interest in screening drivers, as they stand to lose money should they insure less than careful, or able, drivers.

I think that privatizing licensure in this way would not only make the screening process for drivers more rigorous (and thereby, have a likely effect of cutting down the number of accidents), but be less costly to the general public. If this large role (which the DMV doesn't do all that well to begin with) were handed over to the private companies, the DMV's traffic and, let's hope, necessry expenditures would be cut in about one half.

It could be argued that such measures would result in stricter driving tests which would ultimately mean that fewer people drive. So be it. Insurance companies would not make tests too strict (as they want customers), but would likely not make tests too lax (as they don't want to increase risk of paying out). My guess is that - think colleges here - the best insurance companies will be the most selective because they can afford to be, and the lesser companies may be less selective. Those who decide to make their tests minimal so as to accept as many clients as possible will then have to deal with the larger payouts that will likely result. Companies with tests that are too lax will likely either go out of business or acquire a horrible reputation.

Drivers who can only afford to be with the worst companies can "work their way" to better companies by taking the stricter insurance companies' tests. As stricter insurance companies will likely have lower rates (as they will pay out less and be more selective), once drivers feel like they are good enough to take the tests of "elite" insurance companies, they can try them.

All of this rests ony my general belief that businesses, while not always trustworthy, are often more trustworthy than government. They must work to stay in business (whereas government can always steal more money no matter how inefficient). Voting with dollars is more efficient than voting every 2, 4, or 6 years (and the number of non-elected government positions dwarfs the number of elected ones).

So, tell me. What do you think?

House of Cards: The Economic Down Turn and the Impossibility of Playing the Blame Game

Recently, I watched a MSNBC special entitled "House of Cards," about the origins of the current recession - the bursting of the "housing bubble." I assume that the special is based on the book by the same name, which I am going to read as soon as I can. It was quite an interesting, and maddening, special. Of course, I am not an economist, so the following essay will not be written as if I were one. Rather, I want to focus on something others may have missed during the special: while the media and public are wont to blame someone - government, wall street, consumer greed - for our current financial predicament, the special never gets involved in blaming anyone in particular. In fact, the special seems to make an implicit point that, like a house of cards, no one piece can be "blamed" for sending the edifice crashing.

But first, here is my attempt to summarize as best I can thespecial's depiction of the fiasco. The government (Bush administration and Congress) had a noble idea that we should do all we can to promote home ownership, and particularly minority home ownership. Thus, the federal reserve encouraged lenders to find 'creative' ways to give loans to those they might not otherwise give loans to. And that they did. An example of one type of new mortgage offer is depicted here:

“the pay option negative amortization adjustable rate mortgage.” It was designed to help first-time homebuyers who couldn’t actually afford the cost of the loan. Those homebuyers would have the option to pay only part of the interest they owed each month. The unpaid interest was added to the total amount of the mortgage. As a result, the mortgage balance increased; instead of the mortgage being paid down, it was getting bigger.

Now, as stupid as banks were to concoct such doomed-to-fail schemes, consumers were stupid enough to sign on to them. Thus, home ownership went up, home prices went up (because 'loose' loans made it possible to raise home prices as there was now more demand) and banks went lower and lower, only to push home prices up and.... etc.

So who do we blame? The two most common suspects are the banks who created such hairbrained schemes and the government. Generally, those who have left-leaning sympathies blame the former and those with right-leaning or free-market symapthies blame the latter. Even though I have free-market sympathies, I blame both and neither (and can't understand WHY no one thinks to blame consumers for where they spend and misspend their money!).

The problem is this. Each group is responsible for a certain piece of the puzzle, but wiithout willing participation by ANY of these three groups, the party would have been cut short and the housing bubble wouldn't have soared to gargantuan and unjustified heights. Yes, the government cut interest rates and encouraged banks to do what they did, but if banks or consumers didn't take the bait, the point would have been moot. Yes, banks practiced predatory practices, issuing loans to people they knew could not afford the loans they signed on to, but the consumers eagerly joined the action. And yes, the consumers were stupid and greedy, but had the banks not played to that stupidity and greed, there would have been no transaction.

And this, to me, is one of the beauties of capitalism. In a centrally planned system, it would be easy to blame one party (the government and its economics board). But also, since all economic decisions would be centralized, mistakes like this one would be easier and more frequent, as there would be fewer checks and balances. In the current case, THREE distinct groups rather than one economics board) had to make the exact same mistake in order for catastrophe to strike. The problem is not that one group screwed up (which is all that would have to happen to send a centrally planned economy into a tail-sprin), but we all screwed up.

And here is the other great thing about capitalism. Were the president familiar with capitalism, he would recognize that one of its assets is that it punishes the guilty. If capitalism were allowed to work, the guilty banks would be penalized with bankruptcy and the stupid and greedy consumers (who bought houses they could not afford knowingly) would be homeless. (Of course, the government - just as guilty a party as the rest - would not be punished becuase they can just keep stealing money. from the public to stay in buisness.)

Thus, while some see capitalism as encouraging greed, if it were allowed to work in this situation, we would see that greed is just as often punished in a capitalistic economy.

But, really, the point here is that those intent on playing the blame game need to explain how the group they decide to blame could have done their damage without the willing complicity of the other two. I don't see how that could happen, and that is why I blanche at any suggestion that there is A guilty party (other than all the government and bank officials as well as consumers who let greed, rather than temperance, dominate their thin heads).

But give Obama seven more years, and this will surely not be the case. The next time the economy goes awry, we will be able to blame one party - maybe the nationalized banking comission, or the centarlized economic planning comission. Until then, I like not being able to blame JUST ONE party.

Would Privatizing American Education Threaten Democratic Values?: An Analogy Between Schooling and the Media

This article... argues that, in an increasingly fragmented world, privatised control of civic education in state-funded schools in England threatens the integrity of public education and the civic objectives of state schooling.

This quote is taken from an abstract for an article in a prominent education journal. It voices a common criticism towards the idea of privatizing American education, via either a voucher or a wholly private model. The argument is that, by getting rid of the "common school," education becomes unstandardized and, hence, threatens the idea of a common value set needed for a functioning democracy. Here is a nice summary of what the argument often looks like:

The Undermining America Argument: Choice will siphon off needed funds from public schools and, as a result, the quality of public education in the United States will suffer. In addition, choice will undermine democratic values and lead to segregation and division.

The problem I have with this argument is twofold. First, it contains an assumption that I am not convinced is valid: democracy relies on the citizenry sharing common values. While this statement is often bandied about as fact, it is generally never, but really should be, argued for. But this is a discussion for another time, as this objection is not the one which concerns us here.

The primary reason I object to the argument that a plurality of private schooling option would undermine necessary common values is simply that the conclusion is dubious. And such can be seen if we look at an analogy: that of the media, and whether it functions best as a monopoly or plurality.

The irony that one notices is that the biggest defenders of public "common" schooling tend to be on the political left. This has been true since John Dewey and Edward Thorndike all the way to the present day, as seen with Jonathan Kozol and Alfie Kohn. (Yes, the right supports public ed as well, but vouchers and privatization seem to be primarily a "right wing" phenomenon). But another argument found primarily on the left argues against the "monopolization" of the media. There is a disjunct between these two arguments. One the one hand, it is said that monopolizing education is healthy for democracy, and on the other, that monopolizing the media is unhealthy for a democracy.

What?

Wouldn't one expect that those in favor of pluralism in the media would also be in favor of pluralism in education? Both the media and the education system, after all, have to do with the exact same thing: educating citizens. Why is it that there exists no argument that pluralizing media sources would result in an undermining of democratic values?

The reason is that those in favor of citizens having a plurality of media sources to choose from argue, rightly, that a diversity of voices is good for democracy and when news sources become monolithic, a well-educated citizenry is threatened. An extremizing of this argument can be seen here:

Arguably, the US's much-vaunted "free media" practice a form of adroit self-censorship that's all too reminiscent of Soviet models of the past. Example: could a state-owned American media machine have been much more avid as a cheerleader for the US occupation of Iraq?

In other words, the minute we have an entirely state-run media (or corporate run monopoly on media) then the easier it is for society to be indoctrinated rather than educated.

But I fail to see how this argument would not also work brilliantly as an argument against a monopoly of state-run schools! Let's try it out by taking the above quote and changing a few words:

Arguably, the US's much-vaunted "liberal education" practice a form of adroit self-censorship that's all too reminiscent of Soviet models of the past. Example: could a state-owned American school system have been much more avid as a cheerleader for the US occupation of Iraq?

The point I am trying to make here is that, if critics of privatization of schooling as a threat to common values were consistent, they would also be equally against pluralism in journalism and the press. If different people get their news from different places, we will ot all receive the same news, and therefore (allegedly) democracy will break down.*

Of course, we rightly realize that a plurality of media sources does not hurt, but helps democracy by offering people a choice on what news to receive, and keeping everyone in check by making it extremely unlikely that the type of indoctrination hinted at in the above quote could take place. People can choose their news and news organizations must compete with each other.

The exact same can be said for why pluralization of education outlets is a benefit to democracy. Allowing choice in educaiton means that one source (federal or state governments) do not control the curricula for every child. This means that, while certain schools will choose to indoctrinate in certain ways, a diverse populace will be sustained. Schools will be forced to compete for business, and as a result, will strive to produce better education than competitors. (Can you imagine how low the quality of news would be if the federal government or Foxnews were the only game in town with no one to compete against?)

In closing, democratic values are not threatened, but strengthened by, a plurality of news media sources. No one (save for Dr. Sunstein) takes seriously the argument that, for a democracy to function, we must all receive the same news. Thus, I don't see how the education situation is not directly analogous. No one should take seriously the idea that for a democracy to properly function, all students must receive exactly the same education.

*[Ironically, legal professor Cass Sunstein actually does make a similar argument in his book Republic.com, where he argues that the proliferation of media sources is a bad thing because it produces a fractious polity which, apparently, makes democracy less workable rather than more robust. Not many agree with Sunstein, for good reason.]

Is "Meritocracy" a Dirty Word?

I have a bold confession - one that is most certain to be "politically incorrect." No...I am not a racist, sexist, or homophobe. No... I am not a nazi or a fascist. But it will be hard to convince some people that I am not any of these things because of what I AM: a meritocrat. I believe very firmly in the idea of meritocracy - that deserts should be doled out by merit before any other criteria - and because of this, some will think that I must be racist, sexist, an a fascist.

Why do I make this bizarre and, to some, grizzly confession? Because I have recently been noticing the word "meritorcracy," floating around, and when I see it, it is always used pejoratively. When looking through education books on amazon.com, for instance, I see books like "The Big Test: The Secret History of American Meritocracy," which professes to show that "The current crises in American education have deep roots," in the elitist and racist idea of meritocracy.

Another pejorative referral to meritocracy can be seen here, in an online summary of an article by political scientist James Flynn,, who refers to meritocracy as a "materialist-elitist value," and whose article title juxtaposes meritocracy with "true justice."

Most surface level discussions of meritocracy do exactly what Flynn does: suggest that a meritocrat is an elitist. Of course, when the term "meritocracy" is defined, meritocrats, like myself, turn out to be quite different from elitists. Here are their definitions:

elitism: practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

meritocracy: leadership by able and talented persons.

When one confuses belief in meritocracy for belief in elitism - as often happens - one makes a categorical mistake. Belief in meritocracy could be seen as a kind of elitism, but there are many kinds of elitism that are not meritocracy. Meritocrats do not, for instannce, believe in the value of elites by birth order, financial privilege or any other criteria that is not directly related to ability at the relevant task(s). The connotation of elitism is that "elites" should be praised BECAUSE OF their "elite" status (by whatever criteria that is). For the meritocrat, the only relevant factor in one's praiseworthiness is one's ability - one's merit in performing the task being measured.

Why do I oppose forms of ranking not based on merit? Why not support that more egalitarian/equalitarian ideal of the day that desert be meted out based on need rather than ability or meted out equally to all regardless of ability?

There are several reasons I oppose this idea. First, I believe strongly in the idea that ranking by merit provides incentive to people to achieve more than they might if they were guaranteed a certain level of "reward" regardless of merit. On the flipside, nations/schools/business strucutres that do not work on the merit system (who promote based on time served rather than achievement) tend to emcourage employees to focus less on output and more on "putting in your time." (To see this in action, look at the relative lethargy of public school employees versus private school employees).

The second reason I oppose non-merit-based programs, like affirmative action and social promotion in schools, is that its attempts at fairness are not fair at all, for two reasons. First, when reward is not meted out by merit, but by other factors, then we are inadvertently saying that ability to do x is relevant to the reward one should recieve for x (that one's ability to get into law school is not related to one's ability to demonstrate legal ability). The second reason non-merit-based approaches are not fair is that they inadvertently tend to put people "in over their heads," by putting the non-law-school-ready applicant into law school without demanding a certain level of attainment (leaving them unequipped). Those who are "helped" in the short term often end up harmed in the long term by thrusting them into a situation requiring x level of mastery without being equipped with x level mastery.

The last reason I oppose non-merit-based ranking is purely pragmatic: even if there are defects in merit-based systems (there are), I cannot think of a more fair alternative. If one has to mete out deserts somehow, it seems best that they are meted out in proportion to ability and effort. As the old dictum says, "you get out what you put in." The alternative - the "null hypothesis," if you'd like - is: "what you put in is irrelvent to what you get out." To me, that is unnaceptable.

To illustrate, let's look non-merit-based hiring like affirmative action. It is often argued that purely merit based hiring ignores such factors as socio-economic and racial differences. It is probably true that those coming from middle- or upper-class backgrounds are more "hirable" to many than those from lower-class backgrounds, as they have been afforded more opportunity in education and life. Those who are in the lower-class probably had not the educational opportunities of those "above" them in socio-economic station. Thus, meritocracy isn't fair because it "stacks the deck" against those who are less well off.

I concede the point of meritocracy's critics that a pure meritocracy does not often exist. Decisions are often made based on decisions unrelated to merit (personal biases, family connections, etc.) But this DOES NOT mean that I concede the conclusion that meritocracy is, therefore, unethical or wrong. Meritocracy - even if it exists only imperfectly - may still be more moral than its alternatives.

And this is what I hold to be the case. Notions like affirmative action to access certain things by lower standards than others who must reach higher standards. Thus, black students can attend universities with a 3.0 GPA where other students might need a 3.25 or 3.5. And if we wanted to go further, we could simply apply a fully egalitarian impulse to college admittance, admitting students regardless of GPA or any other acadmic standard.

Are thes more fair than meritocracy simply becuase some admissions boards may make some decisions based on family attendance to the school ("You're father went to Yale, therefore...") or race (which I highly doubt in this day and age)? Not unless you assume that merit is irrelevant or a minor, rather than major, criteria for deciding how to mete out rewards. If merit is irrelevant - or not as relevant as some other standard - than what standard should we use in its place? Race (as the affirmative action supporters say.) Family lineage (as the elitists suggest)?

To me, it all comes down to the maxim quoted before: you get out what you put in. Instead of getting out what your skin color dictates, what your sex dictates, what you need (regardless of whether you put anything in), or what befits your family heritage, I propose a meritocracy. We get out what we put in. Nothing else makes much sense.

Capitalism and Temperance

Who is rich? He that rejoices in his Portion.

He that drinks fast, pays slow.

What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in
that of a great kingdom

These quotes may seem as if written by the great virtue ethicists like Aristotle and Plato. In reality these three quotes, which beautifully illustrate the need for modesty, temperance, and prudence were written by two of the greatest champions of capitalism: the first two are from Benjamin Franklin, and the third is from Adam Smith.

In recent discussions, the words "greed" and "capitalism" often get confused, and the former is seen to be the inevitable outcome of the latter. I can understand this connection; it seems quite obvious that as capitalism depends on the profit motive, great progress can only be achieved by great profit motive, which means "greed."

Truthfully, greed often is a big part of capitalism. The most successful entrepreneurs and businesses are those ambitious enough to desire domination of their market. Wal-mart, Southwes Airlines, Microsoft and other "high flyers" can only get there by, in some sense, being greedy - by wanting to control their markets and make as much profit as possible.

But capitalism also rewards the temperate and prudent. As Adam Smith (3rd quote) rightly notes, prudence can "scarce be folly." While risk-takers are generally greedy (which is why they are willing to take risks), capitalism more frequently rewards those who spend within their means, grow steadily over time rather than meteorically, and have realistic ambitions.

Companies which acquire huge debt, grow too fast, or try and do too much often end up losing out just as fast as they rose (if they rise at all). Companies that focus on one or a few good products, look before they leap, and do not acquire substantial debt are often the "slow but steady" companies in the market.

As with producres, so with consumers. Those who are spendthrifts, live beyond there means, and do not overextend their finances are the ones who generally go unpenalized. Those who take too many chances, buy excessively on credit, and don't limit their expenditures to their revenue, tend not to last long. The natural consequences of capitalism for this behavior are that sooner or later, their "luck," and finances, will run out.

So, far from encouraging greed, capitalism seems more to encourage temperance and prudence. While some of the more exuberant are rewarded from time to time, any good money manager will tell you that you cannot go wrong with prudence. Rather than encouraging great spending, capitalism punishes big spenders the most and moderate to small spenders the least. And a great benefit of capitalism is that it is a system - the only system - which allows one to choose for themselves what they want to be: a glutton or a spendthrift, a big shot with a stressful and high-paying career, or a "small guy" who has a less stressful pace for a lower pay, complexity or simplicity.

As I have mentioned, my fear is that the new Obama bail-out plan will immunize those who need to learn this lesson (provided by the natural consequences of capitalism) form learning it. Overspending and overextending can only lead to trouble; moderacy and prudence seldom get penalized. What Obama is doing is ensuring the opposite: those who have been prudent will be forced to pay for those who have been extravagant.

This is not the lesson of capitalism. And I like capitalism more than Obama.

Greed, Not Capitalism!

What was it that got us into this recession, anyhow? Is it the banks' fault? Is it the consumers fault? Is it the government's fault?

Yes, yes, and yes!

What got us into this recession is greed - not capitalism. We cannot blame 'the market' for the recession, as markets do not act on their own. People act within rules of the market. Thus, people - bankers, consumers, creditors, debtors - not the market, got us into the predicament we are in. People bought houses they could not afford; banks promised loans they could not support to people that should not have gotten loans; people bought too many things on credit and let their finances get out of control; banks let them do this.

Greed! Not capitalism! These two things can go toghether, but are not by any means synonyms.

Captalism functions on the principle of a profit motive, and that may lead some to think that capitalism bases itself on greed. But one can have profit as their motive without overextending themselves, just as consumers may be motivated by money and material pleasures while keeping these desires in check. The problem is NOT that banks and consumers were motivated by material gain, but that they let this cloud their judgment; they ceased thinking about the long tern (can I afford to make this loan or buy this Hummer?) and did without thinking.

Greed!

My hope is that the era of frivolous spending is over. (That is a quote from our frivolously spending president for which I no longer have the link.) What many - including Obama - don't realize is that recessions are the economy's natural way of making us take stock. When spending gets out of control and people are spending more than the economy can monetarily support, recessions slam on the breaks by penalizing irresponsibility; loans must be defaulted on, business gets slower, jobs get cut, and prices and spending go back to a nice even keel.

What worries me, though, is that our very spend-hungry president is working to ensure that the good times artificially keep rolling! He is working to make sure that loans get forgiven or bailed out, jobs get artificially reproduced, and the irresponsible are saved from consequences of irresponsibility.

This will not fix the problem (as any economist worth anything will tell you), but it just postpones the inevitable. If a recession would naturally occur because we are spending out of control, the best way to curb it is make it so that spending cannot remain out of control. Our president and congress, though, are redistributing wealth precisely so that it CAN remain out of control. instead of making it so that those who have no business buying a four bedroom house can no longer pay their mortgage, the president will just make everyone pay four the four bedroom house. Instead of making sure that those who bought too much on credit must go into bakruptcy, he will make sure that we all pay for her things. Instead of ensuring that mismanaged banks be eliminated by forcing them to close under economic pressure, we are all going to pay for them to misrun their businesses.

My fear is that we will not have learned our hard-won lesson about greed's ability to tank an economy. My fear is that our leaders will protect the guilty (banks, greedy consumers) by punishing the innocent (those who don't need bailouts will pay for those who do.) My fear is that, in the process, all of this recession business will be for naught, as no one will have learned anything at all.

Does Anyone Else See the Contradiction? Obama Follies, Part 1

This afternoon, I came across the following headline. It is actually quite funny until you think about the fact that politicians (that probably think they are smart) are the ones coming up with these half-witted schemes. The headline reads:

Obama urges spending curbs, hands out $15 billion

Do you see the contradiction? How can a government that has just dropped $787 BILLION dollars of free government handouts also urge that we cut government spending?!? It would be like a parent urging her daughter not to smoke after buying her cigarettes, or a CEO telling her company the need to be thrifty while collecting a several million dollar salary. CUTTING SPENDING AFTER PASSING THE SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE BILL IN HISTORY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

According to the article, Obama plans on cutting the deficit by "scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government." The first of these will doubtless find little objection, and the second will find objection with libertarians like myself. (Why not cut spending to reduce deficits rather than raise taxes?!)

But the third - streamlining government - is a pipe dream, or a shift piece of rhetoric (probably the latter). How can government be streamlined when it just passed a $787 billion handout to companies? And how can we talk about streamlining government when, as the article notes, the administration is "attempt[ing] to bolster the severely weakened banking system without nationalizing any institutions"? In government language, "bolster" is always synonymous with "pass more regulations for," and "give government more control of." Does that sound like "streamlining" the government? I think not.

And here is a final doozy. In a direct quote, Obama shows that he is a true politician by coming up with something exactly THIS stupid:

"We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."

So, tell us, boy genius: where is the $787 billion coming from, if not from the "next budget"? And how is spending $787 billion dollars to help out banks and auto workers not "spend[ing] as we please?"

So try to figure it out if you can (especially those of you who like the really hard riddles): How exactly can one go about tightening government spending and streamlining government a week or so after spending $787 billion for government handouts?

Is Tenure for School Teachers Necessary or Productive? (No.)

When we think of tenure, we think of academic freedom - the liberty of teachers to delve into controversial ideas without fear of losing their jobs. We think of professors like Bertrand Russell who was denied various teaching positions due to some controversial writings he produced (as a professor). Tenure's rationale, then, seems to be a desire to leave professors free to engage in research without having to think about whether their choice of subject or position will affect their employment status.

This concern of academic freedom, though, doesn't seem to have the same import at the primary and secondary school level. Unlike professors, teachers do not engage in research and publishing in addition to teaching duties, do not often have complete freedom to write curriculum, and, even if they do, are strongly advised not to engage in teaching that could be considered controversial or edgy. Because of this, it is tough to see why primary/secondary school teachers need tenure to protect them.

One of the most universal criticism of tenure - at any level of education - is that it makes it difficult, bordering on impossible, to fire incompetent teachers. Once a teacher/professor has tenure, she is stripped of the market pressure to perform that exists in any job where fear of termination could be a motivator. In a recent blog entry, Stanley Fish writes of a professor who, up until now, has been protected by tenure (and even now, it will be extremely hard for the University to terminate him). This professor - Denis Rancourt - is supposed to teach physics, but tells his students that he will teach whatever he feels like teaching (often political activism).

While tenure protects incompetents like Rancourt, many feel that, at the college level, the cost is worth the benefit of ensuring that academics are free to pursue their scholarly interests without fear of termination. The University of Delaware's Linda Gottfredson, , who does controversial research on the relationship of IQ to factors such as race, health, etc, produces very scholarly important research that, without tenure, she may not engage in for fear of termination. Even if tenure protects some bad professors, it is often argued that without its guarantee, professors like Gottfredson would let the topics of their research be motivated by economic concerns, rather than the pursuit of truth.

We know that the same cost of tenure - the insulation of incompetents from firing - exist at the primary/secondary school level, but do the benefits? No. As mentioned, primary and secondary teachers do not have the research responsibilities that do college professors. Thus, the only "controversial" stances they could take would be in the classroom, which has always been ill-advised (witness the sad examples of James Keegstra and Jay Bennish as unfotunate examples of teaching "controversially" to high school students).

I am quite at a loss to find any benefit in primary and secondary school teachers recieving tenure. If academic freedom is the rationale for tenure, then the only question left is whether primary or secondary school teachers have such academic freedom concerns that they should be granted the freedom to pursue ideas that might otherwise get them fired. I simply cannot see that teachers of 5, 12, and 17 year olds would ever need that kind of freedom (and would be concerned if teachers, like Keegstra, took positions in their classes that could conceivably result in termination).

According to this article the push for tenure amongst primary and secondary school teachers:

The start of the tenure movement paralleled similar labor struggles during the late 19th century. Just as steel and auto workers fought against unsafe working conditions and unlivable wages, teachers too demanded protection from parents and administrators who would try to dictate lesson plans or exclude controversial materials like Huck Finn from reading lists.

This, too, is a rationale that is antiquated. Rarely do teachers control whether Huck Finn should be required reading, and rarely would a teacher be fired over their lesson plans. Whether Huck Finn is part of the curriculum has become an administrative issue, and the lesson plans that (public school) teachers teach are heavily dictated by the demands of a curriculum that they didn't write. (Whether this should be so is debatable, but I think this decision is correct for public schools.)

Again, the rationale for tenure amongst primary and secondary school teachers seems to be antiquated and unnecessary. One of the only articles I have found to argue for the justice of tenure for primary/secondary school teachers has the following abstract:

This speech responds to arguments for reform or abolition of teacher tenure acts. The author argues that, inadequate as tenure laws may be, they provide in many States the most practical safeguard against managerial caprice in the educational establishment. Court cases that uphold or prove the value of teacher tenure laws are presented.

Teh large problem with this argument is that "manegerial caprice" is not exclusive to the education industry, and protection against it is hardly a reason to argue that schools are unique in needing protection from it. One can certainly argue that, without tenure, good teachers might be fired simply because they are not liked by peers or superiors, but this could just as easily happen at a bank, a restaurant, or a law firm. It is unclear why schools are unusual in needing protection from "managerial caprice." If it is argued that schools are particularly susceptible to such political decision-making, then this seems more like a "childishness" problem, rather than a problem warranting exceptional "tenure" protection.

A Gallup Poll report suggests more of the same:

Those in favor, including teacher unions and state school board associations, have long held that tenure is necessary to protect teachers from dismissals based on unpopular opinions, arbitrary administrations, or simply the ebb and flow of cultural tides. "I'm in favor of job security for all types of work, including teaching," says Todd, a 45-year-old respondent from Maine who is "somewhat familiar" with tenure and likes what he sees. "Teachers put in a lot of time and they deserve to know their job will always be there."

As we have discussed, dismissal because of unpopular opinion is much more likely with college professors, and "arbitrary...ebb and flow of cultural tides," is not a factor that is exclusive to schools.

But a new argument is that since teachers works so hard, they deserve job security for life. I am a teacher, and can attest that we do work hard. But I can also attest that (a) good teachers (the ones the quote focuses on) wouldn't need tenure to be able to keep their jobs; and (b) there aer plenty of other professions with people that would "deserve" job security if the criteria is how hard the work is.

Anyway we slice it, justifying tenure for primary/secondary teachers is a stretch. Unlike college professors, we don't have much occasion (or is it advisable) to hold opinions in the classroom that would warrant tenure protection. Second, we do not, by in large, control the curricula and, therefore, do not need "academic freedom" for curricular purposes. "Job protection from arbitrary administrations" is a weak argument, as there are many other professions that could fire based on unsound reasons. And, lastly, arguing that teachers deserve tenure because they work so hard ignores all of the other professions that work as hard or harder, yet do not need tenure and do not argue for it.

Libertarianism and Why It is Superior to Randian Objectivism

By almost coincidence, I have been thinking about the philosophy of Ayn Rand lately. Not only is one of the blogs I've been following been having some interesting discussions on the merits of Rand as philosopher, but I am reading a book about education using Rand's principles of free market capitalism. In addition, I have received several comments on my posts from Atlas Fan, a blogger with Objecitivst sympathies. All of this has put Ayn Rand's philosophy back into the forefront of my brain. As will be clear, I am not very sympathetic with it.

Before going on to a look at why libertarianism is superior to Objectivist justifications for a minimal state, I want to briefly outline my history with objectivism. In the years 2000 and 2001, I was an objectivist of the ARI variety. I was very convinced that Rand's Objectivism was a viable, fully developed, closed system of philosophy. Gradually, I noticed what I thought were some serious flaws in some of Rand's argument - her ethical philosophy was insufficiently thin, her view of what constituted "reason" was too monolithic, etc. - and fell out of love with Objectivism.

Since then, the one sympathy I truly share with Rand is a belief in liberty, a minimal state, and the use of coercive force as suspect. That said, I think libertarian belief without Randian justification is much stronger than it is with.

First, one of Objectivists key complaints against non-Randian libertarianism is that "Although some call libertarianism a "philosophy," in fact it is just a relatively broad political position..." whereas Rand's defense of freedom "is a systematic philosophy: it starts with a theory of reality and a theory of knowledge, then develops a moral view using conclusions from the previous two fields, and all those conclusions provide the basis for its politics. (1)

Guilty as charged! There is a plurality of possible justifications for libertarianism: thinkers have argued that libertarianism is justified on utilitarian grounds, via natural rights, on religious grounds, or in a plurality of other ways. If libertarianism is to leave people free, though, I could not see that a "one justification system fits all," (like Rand's) as fitting a libertarian community.

In fact, if one suggests that there is only one very specific way to justify liberty (as Rand does) then you run a serious risk of restricting yourself into a minority view. As Rand views hers as a deductive system (it is actually inductive, but that is no matter), then she is saying, "If you don't share my views on epistemology or metaphysics, you can not possibly be a true defender of liberty. Check your premises!" With this very restrictive view, you will win only a handful of adherents (as witnessed by the relatively small number of people who actually consider themselves objectivists).

I have long been an advocate of having a plurality of justifications for any moral or political action. The more ways you can justify x (x is justified on utilitarian, natural rights, pragmatic, grounds) then the more chance you have of being able to justify x to a wide variety of audiences. As I take it a free society will likely have a variety of moral codes for people to subscribe to, it seems obvious that the more traditions one can appeal to in justification of a moral act, the better one will be. Rand's "one size fits all" practice of making a proper defense of liberty contingent on literal adherence to a very particular philosophic code means that you are dooming yourself to appealing to the few, rather than to the many.

More troubling still, whenever I read Rand (or an Objectivist's) denunciation of libertarianism, I can't help but think that they are not defending freedom so much as "freedom to be an Objectivist." In other words, Objectivists' insistence that "rational" people will agree on just about everything (i.e., they will follow Rand to the letter) reminds me of the type of "free society" that exists in Mormon Utan, where everyone is free to act as they choose (with the understanding that if one makes a wrong move, one will be excommunicated or cackled into submission.)

Take the following invective from Peter Schwartz:

"Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical." (2)

First, this is a bad oversimplification. No libertarian that I have ever been in contact with has ever advocated an "eliminat[tion of] all restraints on human behavior." Libertarians certainly draw the line at the Millian (yes, it was around before Rand) "no harm" principle - the principle that, while certain acts are permissible, government is justified in "stepping in" as soon as one person or ground engages in coercive harm to another. In other words, libertarians are far from the hedonists Schwartz describes, but agree fully with Rand (and Locke) that the purpose of government is to protect the individual.

To libertarians, it seems obvious that no free society would endorse one moral system - particularly a horribly restrictive one - as Schwartz seems to want for his "free society" (Galt's gulch, perhaps, where everyone is completely like-minded?). To libertarians, it is obvious that when you leave people RELATIVELY free to live their own lives, a plurality of value systems and ways of life will emerge; people don't think the same, and generally, a society of people that thinks the same is indicative of coercion.) If Galt's gulch or an Objectivist village is teh model of a free society, then it is either indicative that coercion or threat is involved, or is a "membership only" society that restricts membership to those subscribing to a certain view. Neither is consistent with any real libertarianism.

Would an Randian "free society" look like the Ayn Rand Society, where those championing liberty exercise banishment from their group at fast rates? (The David Kelley incident is instructive here, as it led to several 'banishments' from the club, holding no idea of academic freedom. Another great example of such childish and collectivistic behavior can be seen here.)

Objectivists like Schwartz and Peikoff hold an interesting admixture of zeal for individual rights but absolute scorn for those who would exercise it in any way of which they disapprove. Of course, intolerant individuals can certainly function within a free society, and a free society is one in which they would not be barred or coerced unless they did real harm to others. But I shudder to think of how quickly a free society consisting only of those individuals would erect into a statist one where the state monitors behavior to ensure that it is compatible with "reason." Or such a society of like-minded intolerant individuals may quickly become "free" in the way Mormons are in Utah: individuals are free to act in accord with the restrictive ethical code that binds them under threat of banishment or ostricization.

What really concerns me, though, is Objectivism's negativity towrads objectivism's inability to provide strong moral sanction:

Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty” (3)

Why is Schwartz concerned that libertarianism cannot stop the "gay-rights activist" or "overt anarchist" from exercising his liberties? (Surely, libertarians are justified in penalizing the criminal, via the "no harm" principle). My fear is that, in Schwartz's "free society," the gay-rights activist would be censored or censured for doing nothing other than adcovating for the rights of gays to have relationships and marry. (Rand is incapable of justifying, on Objectivist principles, why gays should not be able to marry.) Schwartz also seems desirous of being able to stop "overt anarchists" from expressing their obviously non-Objectivist views.

Schwartz really does seem to want a society where all views other than Objectivism meet with strong reprobation. This is not defense of freedom, but defense of freedom to follow a restrictive code or be censured (a Mormon-esque freedom with Uncle Warren's role being replaced by Aunt Ayn).

This is why I think libertarianism of a plural variety (and with plural justificaitons) leads to a safer liberty than Rand's very restrictive Objectivist view of freedom. It is more inclusive by allowing for a plurality of justifications (appealing to a wider and more diverse audience), and it is certainly more free in that it would allow various groups with various beliefs and codes to live with the maximum freedom possible (as consistent with a "no harm" or similar principle.

(For anyone curious, the libertarianism that I am in favor of looks much like that written about in the works of William Galston, particularly the book Liberal Pluralism..)

Governor Blagojevich, the moral philosopher?!

Here is an interesting article pertaining to the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. This week, the governor chose not to attend his impeachment trial, where he is accused of conspiring to sell Illinois senate seat left vacant by Barack Obama, and instead, go on a media blitz. The governor went on the View, Larry King Live, Good Morning America (but curiously, avoided America's Most Wanted and World's Dumbest Criminals - must be a strategic move).

Now, it is bad enough that Bagojevich loosely comapred his self-inflicted travails to "Mandela, Dr. King, [and] Gandhi, for which he is now being deservedly lampooned in a musical called Rod Blagojevich Superstar.

Yes, that is bad enough. But the governor, as senseless as he is incredulous, has now become a moral philosopher. On Larry King Live, that is, the governor was called on his repeated assertions that the wire-tap tapes that find him intimating his plans to sell a senate seat were "taken out of context." When asked about what context would justify the statements he made about selling the senate seat, our dear moral philosopher said this:

"If you do an exchange of one for the other, that's wrong," he told ABC's "Nightline." "But if you have discussions about the future and down the road and what you might want to do once you're no longer governor in a few years, what's wrong with that?"

While I am sure that Blagojevich had a good time in law school, I am guessing that he never payed attention in any criminal law classes, and surely never took or understood clases in moral philosophy. Of course, what Blagojevich is trying to do here is distinguish between a criminal act and thoughts about a potential criminal act. The former, for sure, is illegal - he seems to have a firm grasp of that fact - but the latter is perfectly legal so long as it does not lead to a criminal act.

Right? Kind of. One will certainly go to prison if one murders. One will not go to prison, though, if one thinks or fantasizes about murder. What the governor is leaving out though is that one commits a criminal offense when one talks about, and plans, a murder, even if the murder never comes to fruition. As long as there is strong evidence, which apparently the tapes provide, that the governor was talking with seriousness about a plan to sell a senate seat, then it is an offense.

That is from a purely legal standpoint; the governor may not be as guilty as he would be if he actually sold the senate seat, but he is still quite guilty.

Not only does the governor make a poor criminal lawyer, but he makes a bad moral philosopher. To say that one gets a moral free pass because they did not commit a crime, even though one thought and talked seriously about comitting the crime is to ignore the value of intent in blameworthiness. (If I thought about robbing the governor's house and talked seriously about it with others about doing it in "the future and down the road," but got caught before I could do it, would the governor be right - using his "logic" - to say that I am morally in-the-clear? I think he would, rightly, acknowledge that the act of thinking about, and talking about, a crime is itself worthy of moral condemnation.

Before we are through with the governor, he also says something rather revealing in the above-quoted snippet. He makes an unjustified distinction between selling a sensate seat as governor and selling a senate seat as (?!) a private citizen. The latter, he implies, would be not a crime at all. ("...[W] hat's wrong with... discussions about...what you might want to do once you're no longer governor?) Apparently there is nothing wrong with selling a senate seat "when you are no longer governor."

Needless to say, I hope this beast is impeached and goes to jail for a good long time. Clearly, he has jumped off the deep end and I hold no hope, nor desire, for his rehabilitation. The very fact that he was elected to office should make anyone who voted for him question their fitness to vote.

Letter from Senator Barb

Recently, I wrote a fairly angry letter to my Maryland Senator, Barbara Mikulski (D). She "wrote" me back recently (sending my fiancee the same letter, which leads me to suspect that - gasp! - Barb did not actually write the thing.)

Below are excerpts from her letter followed by the reasons why she is wrong on her "points."

We need to do everything we can to save jobs during these difficult economic times. I am a champion of the jobs in the automobile industry. I don't champion an industry. I champion the jobs in the industry. I will do all I can to save these jobs.

What we have here is a misunderstanding of markets. "Saving the jobs" is much different than "saving the whales" in the sense that while the latter is a finite group that can die out completely, the former is not a finite group. If jobs are lost in the auto industry, others will very well open up to 'take their place.' More specifically, if Ford goes under (and their suppliers follow suit), other car companies (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai) will experience an upsurge in consumer demand (from former Ford customers). Thus, those companies would need to hire more people.

The basic idea here is that when jobs close, other jobs tend to open. If a person gets laid off, that person can look for another job and more often than not, will find one. Nor does the found job HAVE to be in the same field as the lost job. When linotypist jobs dried up (because the advance in computer technology made the physical printing press methods obsolete), jobs in the computer market opened up. Linotypists simply went out and computer typesetting came in.

Of course, it can be argued that a recession (or depression) will likely mean that fewer jobs are created to replace the dying jobs. Certainly it is true that if the Failing Three go under, the number of jobs created at other auto companies to 'fill the void' may not be as many as jobs that were lost.

But the ultimate point is that we are achieving nothing by delaying the inevitable, postponing the death of companies that have been near death for years.

The responsible economic decision is to let companies succeed and fail on their own, and if this means that there are fewer jobs as a result, then this is the the economy's way of saying that production is outstripping consumption and that a scale-down is needed. If Ford has more hired help than their revenue will support, then it does little good to 'prop up' those jobs by forcing tax payers to support what the economy will not support on its own. (It is better to let those jobs die and let the market, not the government, command how many jobs are created to take their place, and where.)

It seems to me that the big bias here is not against losing jobs, but losing jobs in AMERICAN companies. I fail to see, though, any justice in forcing the taxpayers to subsidize companies that offer inferior products to foreign counterparts, if Americans have demonstrated that they would rather buy the cars of the foreign counterparts. Economic protectionism, whether it be in the form of subsidies or 'bail-outs,' do not do anything to "protect" consumers, Barb!

The American automobile industry is one of the biggest drivers of the U.S. economy. One out of every 10 jobs in America is auto-related. The American automobile industry is one of the biggest drivers of the U.S. economy. One out of every 10 jobs in America is auto-related. A collapse of GM, Ford or Chrysler, would cripple the American economy, given the huge network of suppliers, dealers, and other businesses and communities that would be affected., given the huge network of suppliers, dealers, and other businesses and communities that would be affected.

I have no idea where this stat was found, but let's assume it is accurate. 1 in 10 equals 10%, and while that is a fair percentage, it stil leaves 90% of the economy unscathed. Second, even if 1 in 10 jobs are auto-related, that does not mean that all of these jobs are linked to Ford, Chrysler, and GM. (Many foreign companies do a lot of their production in the US and utilize American parts.)

Once we get beyond that, though, I cannot figure that what Mikulski says, that a "collapse of GM, Ford or Chrysler, would cripple the American economy, given the huge network of suppliers, dealers, and other businesses and communities that would be affected." Frankly, the only persons I have heard say this are politicians and auto lobbyists.

Now, I COULD imagine the economy being significantly crippled by the going-under of Wal-mart, Target, and Kohls. Think of all the businesses that depend on these retailers for the majority, if not the totality, of their business. Now, ask yourself whether you think that three car companies who fail to turn a profit year after year would have anything CLOSE to the same type of effect on the economy.

As for suppliers, dealers, and other businesses, that rely on the Failing Three, it is true that some may struggle and see a decrease in business. First, that is simply the nature of business. When you depend on other companies to buy your products and those companies struggle, so will you. But beyond this, it is like I said before. Any gaps left by the failing of the Failing Three will quickly be filled by other companies. Thus, I cannot imagine that many companies that rely on Ford, Chrysler, and GM will not find new acquaintance with other car manufacturers who suddenly witness a spike in demand.

Next to the purchase of your home, the purchase of your automobile is your next big ticket. And if you buy a car, someone's got to make them, someone's got to sell them, and someone has to service them.



True! But it only proves my point, not Barb's! When it comes to cars, someone has to make them, someone has to make parts for them, and someone has to service them. So, if the Failed Three go under, other companies will take their place. If suppliers cannot sell their parts to the Failed Three, then they may end up selling to other companies that pick up the slack left by the Failed Three. And companies that once repaired Fords might now try and repair Fords and Hondas.



Leave it to politicians to prove the opposition's point in such rhetorical way as to mistake it for proving their own!



That's why I've introduced legislation that would make interest payments on car loans and state sales tax on cars tax-deductible for new cars purchased between November 12, 2008 and December 31, 2009.



A bail-out coupled with a tariff?! Double whammy. Wlhat if the consumers would rather buy a Honda (as they have shown). If the consumer decides in a way that disagree's with Barb's preferences, she will do what is in her power to induce them to make a different decision. Economics by fiat.



Knowing of your views was helpful to me, and I will keep them in mind as Congress continues to address the current state of the automobile industry



Do YOU believe her?



Nice going, Barb.

Religious Case for Gay Marriage - A critical response

Last week, Newsweek sported a cover story to do with “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” I wanted to like this story. As a libertarian, I am appalled that the State feels that one of its proper duties is to sanction and encourage one type of partnership among consenting adults while obstructing others strictly because of a moral objection. (“Gay marriage is icky!!”) And as a non-believer, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” does nothing to convince me that its utterers are capable of spelling, let alone, explaining their statement.

But anyone wanting to convince the unconvinced that the Bible does not frown on homosexuality will face a problem; the Bible DOES frown on homosexuality… in several difference passages. [http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm] This tiny fact makes the read very awkward: like someone trying to convince me that the “Eat Whatever You Want” diet works, I want to agree with it, but my brain won’t let me.

The author’s case can be summed up like this: while the Bible may seem to condemn homosexual marriage, it should not be taken literally. It’s anti-homosexual message owes more towards the customs of the PEOPLE that wrote it, than any real truth. To use the author’s own words: “A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

To an atheist like myself, such a tact was predictable. In fact, I remember thinking to myself before reading the article that I hope the author would not pull the old, “The Bible doesn’t mean what it says,” line. Well, she did. What about the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality as an “abomination?” it is “is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery” and not homosexuality (as it says). What of the Book of Common Prayer’s mention of marriage as between “the man and the woman?” “Common practices change.”

The author "bolsters" her case by pointing out that in the Bible, "the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found." True enough! Polygamy was all over the Old Testament. Jesus was (despite rough speculation to the contrary) willfully non-married. And beyond that, "[t]he Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. " Thus, anyone who argues that scripture condems homosexuality are taking the Bible at its word, and (as evidenced by the above moral missteps in the Bible) doing that would be taking a human-produced document as Divine Law.

Now, I am not fan of the Biblical literalist Ken Ham, but I remember something he said once that might help us here. On the PBS series " Evolution, Ham was asked why he fights so hard to prove the Creation story of the Bible contra evolution and modern physics. His answer: if the Bible gets it wrong on the origin of the universe, species, and humans, then is there any reason to believe that it gets it right about morality? (Of course, Ham and I have VERY different answers to this rhetorical question!)

His point is my point in reverse: if we believe our Newseek author, the Bible got it wrong about slavery, punishment for adultery, and homosexuality. Is there ANY reason, then, to suppose that the Bible got it right about any other moral pronouncements, let alone metaphysical statements? (If so, it must be explained how we know what sections are correct when we know that other sections are wrong.)

So, if the author is correct and the Bible is a human-made document created by human minds to give voice to their version of how things should morally be, then why should I not just get my morals from Aesop's Fables? By telling us that the Bible's moral proclomations are made by humans, rather than God, then why do we have any reason to suppose that it is correct in any moral capacity?

All of this is deeply strange because we constantly hear people claiming that the Bible is a moral guide and/or authority. When pastors give sermons that wax about the teachings of Jesus, we are told that Jesus - the authority - is telling us how we should live (rather than that a guy who lived many thousands of years ago is offering his debatable opinions). The author herself suggests that, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." Read: while we should realize that the Bible has gotten quite a few ethical proclomations dead-nuts wrong, we need to realize that the Bible has much to offer us in moral wisdom. But, how can we say that the Bible gets a lot wrong ethically while claiming that the Bible can lead us towards "univeral truths" in ethics? The author does not say.

I have an idea on that, though. I believe that the very fact that we can say, "The Bible got it wrong here," MEANS that our sense of morality is indepenent of what is said in the Bible. The author is correct in suggesting that "we struggle towards a more just future," but is wrong to suggst that we do, or should, read the Bible in our quest. Instead of reading the Bible to help us progress morally, what we more likely do is progress morally and then read the Bible and cherry-pick those quotes that can "justify" our new moral positions. (A great instance of this is that during the Civil War, both the abolitionists and the pro-slavery forces quoted the Bible and held that theirs was the Biblically-endorsed position. In reality, no one got their moral views on slavery from the Bible; rather, they only used the Bible to justify their already-held opinions.)

Lastly, the author points out that Jesus's overriding message was that of acceptance and inclusion. "The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage."

I think this is simplistic. While it is commonplace today to suggest that Jesus's love is unconditional, it does not take much to see through this. Jesus's love WAS conditional; conditional on acceptance of him as the son of God. And I have heard many a anti-homosexual Christian argue, Jesus may be accepting towards those who love him, but one could not be gay and love Jesus at the same time (as these folks believe that loving Jesus means repenting for sin, and repenting for sin means renouncing one's gayness). I disagree with these folks passionately, but it is hard to see the flaw in their logic.

To close, it seems to me that the Newsweek author is pushing the same "pick and choose" Christianity that most Christians today practice. (It would be awfully hard not to, considering the idiocy of the alternative of literalism). The problem is that she will not do much convincing with this,. Biblical literalists have heard the "Bible is a document written by fallible humans" before, and they don't seem to be buying it. The only people, then, who will be receptive to her arguments are those who are likely ALREADY non-literalists who do not need convincing.

Reasons Why the $17.4 Billion Bailout Pisses Me Off!

Apparently, our boy George W. is making good use of his lame duck status.. Today, he decided to give a $17.4 Billion dollar bailout to the 3 big failing auto manufacturers. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-12-19_D955VSMO2&show_article=1&cat=breaking

How does this enrage me? Let me count the ways.

(1) I am not sure how our country got so far off track that the federal government can be used as a money lender to companies just becuase they are friendly with politicians!

(2) If the auto companies are going under, that is their own fault and a sign that they are not generating sufficient revenue to maintain their costs. It sounds to me like the consumers have already decided that these companies need not be around. (If they thought otherwise, the companies would not be in serious financial straits.)

(3) It is absolutely absurd that a bill which failed in the senate can be simply revamped as an executive order (fiat) by the president. (Nowhere in our constitution is there allowance for executive orders; making laws is what the legislature is for!) If the president can command anything s/he wants into law, then what is the whole point of congress??!

(4) Bush states that the motivation for this bailout (handout, you mean?) is a failing and ailing economy? If that is so, what sense does it make to take money from most of us to give to an isolated few that - it seems to me - have been offering the general public nothing that they want to buy for years? (It would be like giving money to companies that produce nothing and arguing that the justification for doing so is the saving of jobs. THAT only helps the economy if the jobs being saved are economically beneficial. Since no one is buying Fords, I can't see how saving the jobs of Ford's employees is helping the economy.)

(5) Per what the House and Senate talked about, this bailout (er...handout?) comes with strings attached. Barack Obama said, for instnace:

"The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely necessary to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it, while also creating the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow."

Can you read between those lines? Obama is saying that now that we are paying these companies good money, they are expected to do (x), (y) and (z). How are we so far gone that government officials are telling businesses how to run??

(6) Haven't we already given enough government "loans" (loans in theory, as they have never and will never be paid back) to the auto industry? It is time to give up. If they can't make it by now, they CAN'T MAKE IT!

Those are a few of the ways in which the bailout (there I go again, misspeaking) makes no sense and actually hurts the American tax-payers (the ones who are struggling in a bad economy and AREN'T recieving their own bailouts because they can't afford to give government officials gifts).

To close, Bush suggests that "The time to make hard decisions to become viable is now, or the only option will be bankruptcy." Maybe what he should have said was, "The time to make hard decisions to become viable is long past and the only option IS bankruptcy."

But then again, he never was too good at that economics thing.